Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 3, 1988 8"(}\ '-, \...J 7:30 P.M. o o CITY of ANDOVER SPECIAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - AGENDA MAY 3, 1988 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes from April 12, 1988 Meeting 3. Special Use Permit #88-02 (Anoka County) Public Hearing, Continued 4. Ordinance 53 (Animal Ordinance) Amendment Discussion, Continued 5. Ordinance 10 (Subdivision and Platting Ordinance) Amendment Discussion, Continued 6. Ordinance 8 Amendment Discussion a. 2 acre NB zone size b. 40'/50' any yard setback adjacent to thoroughfares c. # of accessory buildings allowed in residential zones d. garage side yard setback e. notification of neighbors for variances 7. Mining Permit Requirements Discussion 8. ATV Ordinance Discussion 9. High Risk Sexual Conduct Ordinance Discussion 10. Rezoning Issues Discussion 11. Adjournment o o o CITY of ANDOVER SPECIAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 3. 1988 - MINUTES A special meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Perry at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday. May 3. 1988 at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Bouelvard N.W., Andover, MN. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Also Present: Bosell, Jacobson, Jovanovich. Bernard, Pease Vis tad Todd Haas, Assistant City Engineer; Daryl Morey, City Planner; others Approval of Minutes - April 12, 1988 Page 10, 5th paragraph, Commissioner Jovanovich's comments should read: 'Commissioner Jovanovich stated that because there is such a great impact, why wait for two weeks to make a decision.' MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Bernard to approve the minutes of April 12, 1988 as corrected. Motion carried on a 5 yes, 1 present (Perry) vote. Anoka County Special Use Permit, Cont. A new proposal for the location of the communications tower was given to the Commission. Daryl Morey explained that the legislation was approved but it still has the landfills in it. Bruce Wojack, Anoka County - stated that they are looking at putting up a building adjacent to the tower which would be a radio repair shop. He noted that although most of the repair work is done at the scene, the fire department has approached them to work on the fire trucks. As far as the tower is concerned, it is the same as their consultant talked about. Mr. Bernard asked if the building has always been in the proposal. Mr. Worjack stated that it has and that they would hope to construct the build- ing at the same time as they install the tower. Mr. Jacobson stated that he doesn't have any problems with the tower; how- ever. the location is not the best as it is across from one of the most expensive housing subdivisions in the city. Mr. Wojack explained that their original plan was to bury it as deep in the property as they could and they were told they could not do that. Chairman Perry asked Mr. Morey if he had discussed this with anyone at the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Morey said he had not, but he has talked to Norm Schiferl who said basically the same thing as Mr. Wojack. They could put the tower on the on-site buffer area, but first they would have to petition the Metropolitan Council. o Mr. Wojack noted that he talked to some of the people on the Metropolitan Council and they said no to that idea. , , o Special Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1988 - Minutes Page 2 I Commissioner Pease suggested that the city take our concerns to the Met Council. Mr. wojack stated that they haven't done it any place else and they don't intend to do it here. Commissioner Bernard asked what would happen if we said no. Commissioner Jacobson asked if there were any other sites in Anoka County where the tower could be located. Mr. Wojack stated that there are none that would be topographically or geographically satisfactory. Ms. Perry noted that before a decision is made, she would like the city to draft a letter to the Metropolitan Council stating our concerns. Mr. Jacobson didn't feel we could do that; action needs to be taken at this meeting. He noted that the Planning Commission is not against the tower but has objections to the site. MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Bernard that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of a Special Use Permit requested by Anoka County to build a 300 foot communication tower at the southeast intersection of Bunker Lake Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard. Tne Commission finds that they are not opposed to the construction of the 300 foot tower on a parcel of land owned by Anoka County; however, the Commission finds objections to the specific locatio~ requested. Some of those objections include the closeness of the tvwer to a very heavily traveled intersection and that it is close to a future business area north of Bunker Lake Boulevard and the construction of the tower in such close proximity to the Hills of Bunker Lake, which is one of the city's highest priced residential developments. The Commission would not be adverse to the tower being further back on the property and would request negotiations begin with the Metropolitan Council to negotiate a new site within the buffer zone, which would be less visible. A public hearing was hIed and there was no input from the public. The Commission also finds that the construction of the tower at that location would have a detrimental affect on the value of the surrounding properties, and it would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the city in the location requested. Vote on motion: Yes - Bernard; Jovanovich; Jacobson; Pease; Perry. No- Bosell. Motion carries on a 5 yes, 1 no vote. Ordinance No. 53, Cont. \ Mr. Morey reported that the City Council recommended that we have a pro- ) vision for wild or exotic animals. He called several cities for ordinances dealing with this and Bloomington Mill be sending their ordinance. Ham Lake doesn't have anything but they thought that the state had drafted some legislation regarding this issue. Mr. Morey also stated that the ordinance should be renamed 'Animal Ordinance'. ( \ Special Planning commi~ion Meeting May 3, 1988 - Minutes Page 3 (Ord. 53, Cont.) / , ~ ! Mr. Jacobson stated that he doesn't want to have a dog bite someone before it's classified as a biting dog. He added that just the threat of an attack would be sufficient for classification. Other animals, as well as dogs, would fall into this. He stated that another concern was dogs being left all day in the yard. In Section 5 he added some language that if the dog is running free, it has to be with the owner or some other family member. He also suggested that we not give the dog catcher authority to give out tickets; he would rather keep that in the hands of the police department. Lynn Mars, 16453 Argon Street N.W. - concerned about who will determine if the dog has threatened someone. Does a police officer have to see it? Animal Control or who? She noted that she likes the addition of 'attacks of other viscious animals.' Darlene ?, 16434 Zuni Street N.W. - expressed concern as her husband was attacked by a dog. She would like to see the ordinance changed. Ms. Mars asked what the circumstances of a threat would be. Mr. Jacobson fel that you have to first establish that it's a threatening dog. He also noted that when our ordinance was adopted, state law required that you had to have two dog bites to declare it a biting dog. Ms. Mars indicated that the attorney has said that you could shoot a dog while it's attacking. Ms. Bosell didn't think that the interpretation of the ordinance is being taken right. If an animal is not under the owner's control, the deputies can go on that person's property and take the dog. She suggested that a section that states that the owner of the dog shall be notified that said animal shall be leashed or kenneled at all times. This would eliminate one vehicle for a second opportunity to threaten or bite. Lynn Mars - regarding citations, she felt that because our animal control people are professionals, they should be allowed to issue citations. Without consequences, prople are not going to care if their dogs are running loose. Mr. Jacobson noted that Section 21 says that anyone who is found quilty of violating this ordinance would be guilty of a misdemeanor and can be fined and/or jailed. Ms. Bosell suggested that the part of Section 7 that describes a nuisance be taken out and put in the definitions section. She also asked that the definitions be put in alphabetical order. Ms. Perry asked if the Commission wished to address guard dogs. Ms. Bosell noted if a guard dog is not under the owner's control, it is in violation of the ordinance. Lynn Mars indicated that guard dogs are required to be in an enclosure \ with the fence buried so the dog cannot dig it's way out. , Regarding exotic animsls, it was noted that the owner has to certify that the animal has not been poached out of the wild. A permit is also required from the Department of Natural resources for all exotic animals. Special Planning Commi_~ion Meeting May 3, 1988 - Minutes Page 4 (Ordinance 53, Cont.) ~ Several other minor changes were suggested for review at the May 10th meeting. Recess 9:05 - Reconvene 9:15 Ordinance 10 Amendment Discussion, Cont. Discussion was on the platting of all of a developer's contiguous property. By not platting all of the contiguous property, a developer is able to avoid doing an EAW. Todd Haas reported that drainage is one item that we want to look at as a whole. If a developer does his plat in phases, the drainage could be incorrect on the first phase and it would not be discovered until the second phase of the plat was done. Mr. Haas also explained that in the rural area, 100 lots need to be platted for an EAW to be requested. Mr. Jacobson suggested that we require a developer to complete a plat within a certain period of time, such as we do when someone builds a house. He noted that with what is proposed, we would end up with a sketch plan, concept plan, preliminary plat and final plat and that he would not consider a concept plan. Ms. Perry didn't feel that a concept plan would be a benefit to the city; it would only benefit the developer. MOTION by Jacobson, seconded by Jovanovich that the Chairman express the views of the Commission, i.e. that they are not interested in the concept plan. The Commission doesn't see any benefit to the city; the only benefit would be to the developer. We were concerned with the statement that it mightbe possible for the developer to avoid an EAW, and that is not some- thing that we want. Motion carried unanimously. It was decided that the Commission would continue the remaining items, except for the item dealing with high risk sexual conduct, at a special meeting which will be scheduled at the next regular meeting. Hiqh Risk Sexual Conduct Ordinance Discussion Daryl Morey stated that this was brought to our attention because of a number of complaints. Mr. Jacobson noted that there is always a grandfather clause in our ordinances and asked if this would mean that the existing facility would be grand fathered in. Ms. Bosell felt that if it is found to be hazardous, any existing establish- ment would have to be closed. Mr. Jacobson felt that if we adopt this ordinance we have to make sure that we do it right. It was noted that we also have to determine who would be the authority to determine if there are dangerous sexual activities going on. , , \_---'"j \ 'J Special Planning Commission Meeting May 3, 1988 - Minutes Page 5 I (High Risk Sexual Conduct Ord., Cont.) Mr. Morey was directed to obtain copies of transcripts from their hearings regarding this subject. He was also asked to find out if this ordinance is the same as the one in Indianapolis and if it's been tried in court to see if it's constitutional. MOTION by Pease, seconded by Bernard to adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, /." / ~L' (I.--I~ Vicki Volk Acting Recording Secretary